Pratt and Taylor or Marjanovich; who would you rather listen to

To be honest Fast Eddie, I left all my buddies except one on my list. But I'm not going to mention who he is!

As far as Leyland, I don't mind his read as much as I do his attitude, which is why he makes my list, and Paul Wiser, from what I've heard just has a bad wrap with guys in the sports scene. Plus, he spends too little time on the sports that matter in this city, but he'll sure as hell tell us how the Milwaukee Brewers are doing in MLB. I've met Quinton and that's really how his voice sounds, which I found surprizing. Paterson, I just think he's a creative writer.

As for Churnachan and Russell at WX. I've drank a couple of times with Dave, and he's a pretty good guy. Well connected, and their beat reporter, so he's always in the mix. Russell's just a great writer. His read is a little monotone, but still sounds strong to me.

Also I like the work of Scott Rintoul, and Craig McEwen as well. Good guys too. Dan Murphy and Farhan Lalji are great reporters too.

My four cents.

You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose. But never, EVER, pick your friend's noses!!!!! BOOGER!!!

Please give me someone who has played pro sports before and speaks from experience. Someone who's been in the locker room, experienced the travel, negotiated a contract, had a spat with a coach and lead a team or followed a leader of a team.

Moj, Pratt, Taylor, Gallagher, Ball, MacDonald, etc.. have absolutely no resume that would lead me to believe that they know what they're talking about. They have as much experience in pro sports as me, so I'll make up my own opinions, thanks.

Then these guys interview the local newspaper guys and it's just more debate amongst guys that have never been in the situations that the pretend to be "experts" on. They are only guessing about what's happening in pro sports and forming opinions with an outsiders view. Why would I trust anything they have to say?

Ferraro, Thomlinson, Caravatta, etc is a start, but thet need to be full timers, not part time guests.

That's a valid consideration Larry Goodenough but the problem is there's a lot more that goes into being a hockey analyst than simply having experienced life as a pro. It requires a certain set of skills which many former players do not have. I mean, did anyone watch the PPV broadcasts with guys like Kirk Mclean and Cliff Ronning? They're local heroes and great guys but sweet Jesus they are boring to listen to! Sames goes for Garry Valk when he first started. He may have gotten better, but he's still got a very awkward delivery. Guys like Taylor, Pratt, Murphy, etc... are simply far more entertaining and interesting. If they weren't, then you're right, they wouldn't be on television. They're fans, just like us, but I guarantee that many of us here on this site would absolutely suck at the same job.

Murph's alright. I think the players like him as well, based on the way they interact with him. Of course his job is to interview people directly and tell it like it is as opposed to someone like Gallagher who is there to generate interest in his stories by creating controversy, so it's understandable why Murph would be more likeable.

I agree with you Joe, I can't stand the way the media here treats our star players (not only the media I'm afraid). They ran Bure out of town, they dumped on Bertuzzi after the incident and they turned on Naslund the moment his production dropped. I mean what the hell does that say about this city and team when star players get ragged on the moment they falter? For whatever reason, the only player to escape this intense scrutiny is Trevor Linden, which is hilarious because his production disappeared very early in his prime (I dont' think he's produced since he was 28). Given that the odds are Nazzy's done here, I'm really scared to think what could happen once the media inevitably sinks their teeth into Luongo. Love him or hate him, Nazzy has shouldered A LOT of the criticism over the last few years and with him out of the picture, who do you think they're going to go after? Scary thought.

rockalt wrote:That's a valid consideration Larry Goodenough but the problem is there's a lot more that goes into being a hockey analyst than simply having experienced life as a pro. It requires a certain set of skills which many former players do not have. I mean, did anyone watch the PPV broadcasts with guys like Kirk Mclean and Cliff Ronning? They're local heroes and great guys but sweet Jesus they are boring to listen to! Sames goes for Garry Valk when he first started. He may have gotten better, but he's still got a very awkward delivery. Guys like Taylor, Pratt, Murphy, etc... are simply far more entertaining and interesting. If they weren't, then you're right, they wouldn't be on television. They're fans, just like us, but I guarantee that many of us here on this site would absolutely suck at the same job.

You make good points, but these media guys pass themselves off as "experts", yet they are not. If they are more entertaining, then they should present themselves as entertainers who are only guessing as to what is going on.

I might listen to Fat Pratt interview Ben Kuzma about how the Canucks season ended, yet I don't even know if either of these guys have ever played in any sort of competitive hockey game. Why should I give any credence to what these guys have to say? What happens when a radio guy interviews a newspaper guy, my finger goes directly to the CD button for music.

A former pro may not be as entertaining, but at least I can hang my hat on what they have to say because they bring some credibility.

I mean what is Don Taylor other than a news reader? He read scores of a sheet with a vidoe screen behind him! I mean the guy is just a self taught "hockey expert" Shit almost anyone of us could do the same if we were willing to trade in our nuts for a paycheck. When this asshole said anyone that supports Bertuzzi is not a hockey fan, I thought of hunting him down and kicking the shit out off him. Still might.

I went to High School with Dave Randorf and know for a fact that he played hockey the whole time he was growing up. This guy (Randorf) while no longer considered "local media" is someone I can atleast respect. I never hungout with the guy so I'm not just blowing smoke up his ass but I have followed his career and have to like the way he focuses on the sport at hand and not trying to read whats going on in the players head or speculate on the locker room.

The reason Murphy and Randorf get decent interviews is because the focus there questions on what is goin on on the ice, and don't go for the tough "journalistic" questions that piss atheletes off(like that pack of cocksuckers that cornered Luongo after the Oilers game). Or come up with retarded speculations about moods, or willingness to play a certian way or possible fueds. The media says somthing speculative five times and then considers it a fact!! Fuck I hate them.

Like I've said before ,you could put all the Vancouver media ( sans Murphy) in a burlap sack and hit it with a stick and you'd be smacking a f'ing idiot every time.

I see where you're coming from Larry. Pro players definitely have more crediblity but at the same time not having played hockey at high level doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot. I've never played hockey at a high level and I'd like to think I have a decent sense of the game. At the very least, I can identify the strengths and weaknesses of the team and its strategies as I'm sure many other people on this board who have never played can. When it comes down to it, I'd much rather watch someone who's never played pro but is a decent sportscaster than some former pro who's got the personality of a stump. Obviously some combination of the two would be ideal. I agree with you though, there certainly are a lot of annoying personalities in the Vancouver media and sometimes you just figure you could do a better job, but then again, it's never as easy as it looks. Despite all his "broohahahas" and abstract references, I'd much rather listen to Don Taylor than say Garry Valk.

rockalt wrote:I see where you're coming from Larry. Pro players definitely have more crediblity but at the same time not having played hockey at high level doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot. I've never played hockey at a high level and I'd like to think I have a decent sense of the game. At the very least, I can identify the strengths and weaknesses of the team and its strategies as I'm sure many other people on this board who have never played can. When it comes down to it, I'd much rather watch someone who's never played pro but is a decent sportscaster than some former pro who's got the personality of a stump. Obviously some combination of the two would be ideal. I agree with you though, there certainly are a lot of annoying personalities in the Vancouver media and sometimes you just figure you could do a better job, but then again, it's never as easy as it looks. Despite all his "broohahahas" and abstract references, I'd much rather listen to Don Taylor than say Garry Valk.

Well, I never said they were idiots, just that I can't trust their opinions.

Perhaps the best combo would be an entertaining guy like Taylor who would lead the broadcast with a pro player partner who would play second fiddle, but bring some expertise.

Ex-pros have their place, but other than Don Cherry can be pretty boring. Need I remind everyone that sports broadcasting is ENTERTAINMENT?

dp

Joe Rockhead wrote:I mean what is Don Taylor other than a news reader? He read scores of a sheet with a vidoe screen behind him! I mean the guy is just a self taught "hockey expert" Shit almost anyone of us could do the same if we were willing to trade in our nuts for a paycheck. When this asshole said anyone that supports Bertuzzi is not a hockey fan, I thought of hunting him down and kicking the shit out off him. Still might.

I went to High School with Dave Randorf and know for a fact that he played hockey the whole time he was growing up. This guy (Randorf) while no longer considered "local media" is someone I can atleast respect. I never hungout with the guy so I'm not just blowing smoke up his ass but I have followed his career and have to like the way he focuses on the sport at hand and not trying to read whats going on in the players head or speculate on the locker room.

The reason Murphy and Randorf get decent interviews is because the focus there questions on what is goin on on the ice, and don't go for the tough "journalistic" questions that piss atheletes off(like that pack of cocksuckers that cornered Luongo after the Oilers game). Or come up with retarded speculations about moods, or willingness to play a certian way or possible fueds. The media says somthing speculative five times and then considers it a fact!! Fuck I hate them.

Like I've said before ,you could put all the Vancouver media ( sans Murphy) in a burlap sack and hit it with a stick and you'd be smacking a f'ing idiot every time.

Mr Pratt entertainment is one thing but you seriously can't tell me that our local media didn't have a serious hate on for Todd Bertuzzi. Or that they contrived to spread unfounded rumors and undermine his value to the team in an effort to get him out of town.When the media gets its pink panties in a knot and try to influence the personal on a team because of personal and not perfomance reasons its no longer entertainment but petty bitchery run amok.

Joe Rockhead wrote:Mr Pratt entertainment is one thing but you seriously can't tell me that our local media didn't have a serious hate on for Todd Bertuzzi. Or that they contrived to spread unfounded rumors and undermine his value to the team in an effort to get him out of town.When the media gets its pink panties in a knot and try to influence the personal on a team because of personal and not perfomance reasons its no longer entertainment but petty bitchery run amok.

Well said Joe. It's already started between the media and Luongo and we have seen it here on this board with B. Mackin himself.